Well, I am not trying to say you were right or wrong, I was just wondering why you thought what you did. If the statement was merely a reaction, that is fine.
I didn’t assert anything extraordinary, on the contrary actually.
Sure, I understand, but ordinary for you is extraordinary for me. My instinctive opinion is that visual imagination can be trained a significant amount. I have no real reason for believing that, however, so I thought that any input you can offer to the contrary will help me figure out the puzzle.
The “No offence” prefix communicates a connotation that is strongly at odds with your elucidation above.
Anyway, my response was basically indicating that I’m unaware of evidence for training being able to improve visual imagination in a game-changing degree, my intuition tells that it isn’t so, and so I’m surprised by cousin_it’s remark. Although, strictly speaking, “I see no reason why it can’t happen” communicates the same statement, but again with the opposite connotation.
Which is an example of exactly the kind of clash of overconfident beliefs resulting from different intuitive judgments that Yvain described in this article!
The “No offence” prefix communicates a connotation that is strongly at odds with your elucidation above.
Sorry. I changed it.
Anyway, my response was basically indicating that I’m unaware of evidence for training being able to improve visual imagination in a game-changing degree, my intuition tells that it isn’t so, and so I’m surprised by cousin_it’s remark. Although, strictly speaking, “I see no reason why it can’t happen” communicates the same statement, but again with the opposite connotation.
Which makes sense. I guess my original comment was just a ping for “Is this an opinion?” but it did it in an confusing way. But I guess I got an answer, so it eventually worked. :P
Which is an example of exactly the kind of clash of overconfident beliefs resulting from different intuitive judgments that Yvain described in this article!
Well, I am not trying to say you were right or wrong, I was just wondering why you thought what you did. If the statement was merely a reaction, that is fine.
Sure, I understand, but ordinary for you is extraordinary for me. My instinctive opinion is that visual imagination can be trained a significant amount. I have no real reason for believing that, however, so I thought that any input you can offer to the contrary will help me figure out the puzzle.
The “No offence” prefix communicates a connotation that is strongly at odds with your elucidation above.
Anyway, my response was basically indicating that I’m unaware of evidence for training being able to improve visual imagination in a game-changing degree, my intuition tells that it isn’t so, and so I’m surprised by cousin_it’s remark. Although, strictly speaking, “I see no reason why it can’t happen” communicates the same statement, but again with the opposite connotation.
Which is an example of exactly the kind of clash of overconfident beliefs resulting from different intuitive judgments that Yvain described in this article!
Sorry. I changed it.
Which makes sense. I guess my original comment was just a ping for “Is this an opinion?” but it did it in an confusing way. But I guess I got an answer, so it eventually worked. :P
Haha, good point.